Go home, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit
Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

Rich80105

2021-02-23 07:43:41 UTC

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare

From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

John Bowes

2021-02-23 07:50:21 UTC

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672
I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will have most likely had some expert advice.
The stupid Aussie bitch should be sent back to Aus as an undesirable alien and denied entry to New Zealand for the rest of her life. It's all the self centred bitch deserves. Time your glorious leader showed some balls instead of being a virtue signalling fuckwit that she is!

Rich80105

2021-02-23 09:38:40 UTC

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672
I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

Post by John Bowes
The stupid Aussie bitch should be sent back to Aus as an undesirable alien and denied entry to New Zealand for the rest of her life. It's all the self centred bitch deserves. Time your glorious leader showed some balls instead of being a virtue signalling fuckwit that she is!

She will have paid for the MIQ time, but now she is spending money in
Auckland, which is helping our local businesses. At a time when the
tourism and accomodation industry is decrying the lack of overseas
tourists, you and Judith Collins want to send one away!

When she wants to leave, she will pay a fare - likely to be around
$1,200, and even if she uses Quantas our government will get GST on
that fare. I agree that she has not been particularly co-operative
while in New Zealand, but you seem to want our government to help her
by paying that fare for her - clearly you think the government has
plenty of money to spare for difficult Australians . . .

I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money." You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

Tony

2021-02-23 19:55:29 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672
I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

Post by John Bowes
The stupid Aussie bitch should be sent back to Aus as an undesirable alien
and denied entry to New Zealand for the rest of her life. It's all the self
centred bitch deserves. Time your glorious leader showed some balls instead of
being a virtue signalling fuckwit that she is!

She will have paid for the MIQ time, but now she is spending money in
Auckland, which is helping our local businesses. At a time when the
tourism and accomodation industry is decrying the lack of overseas
tourists, you and Judith Collins want to send one away!
When she wants to leave, she will pay a fare - likely to be around
$1,200, and even if she uses Quantas our government will get GST on
that fare. I agree that she has not been particularly co-operative
while in New Zealand, but you seem to want our government to help her
by paying that fare for her - clearly you think the government has
plenty of money to spare for difficult Australians . . .
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money." You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

At least he did think unlike you, thinking by you is worse than Covid-19 for
the rest of us.

John Bowes

2021-02-23 21:52:39 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672
I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

Post by John Bowes
The stupid Aussie bitch should be sent back to Aus as an undesirable alien
and denied entry to New Zealand for the rest of her life. It's all the self
centred bitch deserves. Time your glorious leader showed some balls instead of
being a virtue signalling fuckwit that she is!

She will have paid for the MIQ time, but now she is spending money in
Auckland, which is helping our local businesses. At a time when the
tourism and accomodation industry is decrying the lack of overseas
tourists, you and Judith Collins want to send one away!
When she wants to leave, she will pay a fare - likely to be around
$1,200, and even if she uses Quantas our government will get GST on
that fare. I agree that she has not been particularly co-operative
while in New Zealand, but you seem to want our government to help her
by paying that fare for her - clearly you think the government has
plenty of money to spare for difficult Australians . . .
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money." You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

At least he did think unlike you, thinking by you is worse than Covid-19 for
the rest of us.

Rich is incapable of thought. All he has is : Labour good, National bad. Typical of the mindless morons who support Marxism in the belief it's socialism.....

Tony

2021-02-24 00:15:54 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

Post by John Bowes
The stupid Aussie bitch should be sent back to Aus as an undesirable alien
and denied entry to New Zealand for the rest of her life. It's all the self
centred bitch deserves. Time your glorious leader showed some balls instead of
being a virtue signalling fuckwit that she is!

She will have paid for the MIQ time, but now she is spending money in
Auckland, which is helping our local businesses. At a time when the
tourism and accomodation industry is decrying the lack of overseas
tourists, you and Judith Collins want to send one away!
When she wants to leave, she will pay a fare - likely to be around
$1,200, and even if she uses Quantas our government will get GST on
that fare. I agree that she has not been particularly co-operative
while in New Zealand, but you seem to want our government to help her
by paying that fare for her - clearly you think the government has
plenty of money to spare for difficult Australians . . .
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money." You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

At least he did think unlike you, thinking by you is worse than Covid-19 for
the rest of us.

Rich is incapable of thought. All he has is : Labour good, National bad.
Typical of the mindless morons who support Marxism in the belief it's
socialism.....

Rich's snide and cowardly comment was typical of a lover of sarcsam as often as
possible and any or all ways to subvert the truth. Be,lief that "his"
government is incapable of errors is the way of his tiny destructive world.
Cowardly and childish.

James Christophers

2021-02-24 01:01:48 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672
I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

Post by Rich80105
She will have paid for the MIQ time, but now she is spending money in
Auckland, which is helping our local businesses. At a time when the
tourism and accomodation industry is decrying the lack of overseas
tourists, you and Judith Collins want to send one away!

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

Post by Rich80105
When she wants to leave, she will pay a fare - likely to be around
$1,200, and even if she uses Quantas our government will get GST on
that fare. I agree that she has not been particularly co-operative
while in New Zealand, but you seem to want our government to help her
by paying that fare for her - clearly you think the government has
plenty of money to spare for difficult Australians . . .

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.

Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly qualify it with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.

Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.

It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Tony

2021-02-24 01:23:57 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in
Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards
Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.
Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly qualify it
with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the
meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.
Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.
It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Onl;y one sentence that I wrote have you responded to. All of the others were
written by Rich I believe (but can't be bothered seeing if he was assisted by
someone else).
One of the problems when responding in a thread to more than one poster at one
time.

James Christophers

2021-02-24 01:59:21 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only plane I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in
Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards
Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.
Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly qualify it
with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the
meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.
Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.
It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Only one sentence that I wrote have you responded to.

Why is that insufficient, as you suggest?

All of the others were
written by Rich I believe (but can't be bothered seeing if he was assisted by
someone else).

Immaterial. Even you should have twigged that from top to bottom of the thread I am being as even-handed as I can in my post.

One of the problems when responding in a thread to more than one poster at one
time.

In which case, be less hasty and susceptible and take more time to think **what and how** you are addressing other posts. Otherwise all you're left with, as here, is:

"Qui s'excuse, s'accuse."

Tony

2021-02-24 02:38:49 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only
plane
I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in
Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards
Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.
Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly qualify it
with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the
meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.
Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.
It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Only one sentence that I wrote have you responded to.

Why is that insufficient, as you suggest?

All of the others were
written by Rich I believe (but can't be bothered seeing if he was assisted by
someone else).

Immaterial. Even you should have twigged that from top to bottom of the thread
I am being as even-handed as I can in my post.

One of the problems when responding in a thread to more than one poster at one
time.

In which case, be less hasty and susceptible and take more time to think
**what and how** you are addressing other posts. Otherwise all you're left
"Qui s'excuse, s'accuse."

What a silly man you are. You cannot respond to every poster in a thread
without confusing yourself.
Please try to learn to respond to each person.
By the way, your respoinses to Rich were pretty well spot on.

James Christophers

2021-02-24 04:19:01 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only
plane
I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering isolation or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in
Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards
Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.
Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly qualify it
with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the
meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.
Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.
It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Only one sentence that I wrote have you responded to.

Why is that insufficient, as you suggest?

All of the others were
written by Rich I believe (but can't be bothered seeing if he was assisted by
someone else).

Immaterial. Even you should have twigged that from top to bottom of the thread
I am being as even-handed as I can in my post.

One of the problems when responding in a thread to more than one poster at one
time.

In which case, be less hasty and susceptible and take more time to think
**what and how** you are addressing other posts. Otherwise all you're left
"Qui s'excuse, s'accuse."

What a silly man you are. You cannot respond to every poster in a thread
without confusing yourself.
Please try to learn to respond to each person.

I never needed or intended to in this individual thread, you ineffably patronising nincompoop. With either poster I responded to **what was said**, **not** who said it. If you really hadn't twigged that this is what ran right throughout my even-handed response, then it can only be put down to your fast-fading cognition plus your bitter embarrassment at having been hoist with your own inborn crabbed-mindedness.

Incidentally, you have had no trouble with my process when responding to Rich in your post of 15.57 today. Funny, that! Spontaneous cognitive spasm, was it?

Post by Tony
By the way, your respoinses to Rich were pretty well spot on.

As if your conceited, prejudiced judgement could ever be trusted, you ridiculous little ninny!

Tony

2021-02-24 05:09:47 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only
plane
I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a 'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering
isolation
or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020." with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.

You now excuse the good lady's behaviour by portraying her shopping in
Auckland as some kind of economically beneficial atonement on her part towards
Auckland for the "wrong" allegedly committed.

That is an opinion based on a preconception riding on the word 'clearly'.
Therefore unsafe.

Post by Rich80105
I suspect you are just being deliberately silly so that if anyone is
agrees with you, they will be accused of being spendthrift with
"taxpayer money."

Right or wrong, you are entitled to say this because you guardedly
qualify
it
with 'I suspect'. But it still amounts to weaselling, so think on.

Post by Rich80105
You appear to be emulating another poster to this
group who stunned us all with an assertion that he thought . . . such
that no-one was prepared to burst his bubble by responding.

"You appear" makes the opinion ostensibly valid, but since you know the
meaning of 'ostensibly', it amounts to a crude form of sophistry.
Therefore subject to rightful but well qualified challenge.

Post by Tony
At least he did think unlike you,

A presumption based on an already biased preconception.
It therefore fails.

Post by Tony
...thinking by you is worse than Covid-19

Plain daft.

Post by Tony
for the rest of us.

100% presumptuous of others. Ergo dishonest.

Only one sentence that I wrote have you responded to.

Why is that insufficient, as you suggest?

All of the others were
written by Rich I believe (but can't be bothered seeing if he was
assisted
by
someone else).

Immaterial. Even you should have twigged that from top to bottom of the thread
I am being as even-handed as I can in my post.

One of the problems when responding in a thread to more than one poster
at
one
time.

In which case, be less hasty and susceptible and take more time to think
**what and how** you are addressing other posts. Otherwise all you're left
"Qui s'excuse, s'accuse."

What a silly man you are. You cannot respond to every poster in a thread
without confusing yourself.
Please try to learn to respond to each person.

I never needed or intended to in this individual thread, you ineffably
patronising nincompoop. With either poster I responded to **what was said**,
**not** who said it. If you really hadn't twigged that this is what ran right
throughout my even-handed response, then it can only be put down to your
fast-fading cognition plus your bitter embarrassment at having been hoist with
your own inborn crabbed-mindedness.
Incidentally, you have had no trouble with my process when responding to Rich
in your post of 15.57 today. Funny, that! Spontaneous cognitive spasm, was it?

Post by Tony
By the way, your respoinses to Rich were pretty well spot on.

As if your conceited, prejudiced judgement could ever be trusted, you
ridiculous little ninny!

Once more Keith Warren resorts to abuse, lies and defamatory rhetotic.
How sad, how predictable and how silly.

John Bowes

2021-02-24 09:31:45 UTC

Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:50:21 -0800 (PST), John Bowes

Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300237046/woman-who-refused-covid19-test-will-be-allowed-to-leave-miq-in-wellington-plans-to-file-lawsuit

Someone who needs to get a life.

There is a saying, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
I am with Judith Collins on this one, she is a Ozzie so the only
plane
I
would put her on is on to Oz. The media need to ignore the case.

And if that had been done National and the Media would have
shouted
about 'broken promises' - this was a fairly poor attempt at a
'gotcha'
moment. The government had been specifically asked about what
would
happen in the event of someone refusing a test, and they outlined
exactly what would happen - they would beheld in isolation until
medical professionals were confident that even if she had a covid
infection that was asymptomatic, she had been observed for long
enough
that there was a sufficiently small chance of her being infectious
that it was safe to release. She has presumably paid for the
additional week of isolation; I can see no reason why New Zealand
should pay an expensive airfare
From the article: "The legal basis for returnees entering
isolation
or
quarantine when entering New Zealand is included in the Covid-19
Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020."
with a
link to

Post by Rich80105
https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0241/latest/whole.html#LMS401672

I have not bothered to read it - but perhaps Judith Collins
should.

Maybe you should actually read something you've posted Rich. Collins
will
have most likely had some expert advice.

You would hope so, but there is no sign of it.

As far as **you** know.